| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | ||||||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | ||||||
| CITATION: | NSW Police Force v Newby [2009] NSWWCCPD 75 | |||||
| APPELLANT: | NSW Police Force | |||||
| RESPONDENT: | Jason Newby | |||||
| INSURER: | Allianz Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd-Treasury Managed Funds | |||||
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-8532/08 | |||||
| ARBITRATOR: | Mr R Foggo | |||||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 24 February 2009 | |||||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 7 July 2009 | |||||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Adequacy of reasons; section 40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, ability to earn. | |||||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | President, His Hon. Judge Keating | |||||
| HEARING: | On the papers | |||||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | DLA Phillips Fox | ||||
| Respondent: | Harris Wheeler Lawyers | |||||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | 1. The decision of the Arbitrator dated 24 February 2009 is revoked. The matter is remitted to a new arbitrator for determination of the worker’s ability to earn in suitable employment in accordance with the reasons given in this decision. | |||||
| 2. The costs of the first arbitration and of the second arbitration are to follow the orders at the second arbitration. | ||||||
| 3. Each party pay his or its own costs of the appeal. | ||||||
INTRODUCTION
The New South Wales Police Force (‘ the Police Force’) filed an ‘Application to Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ (‘the Application’) on 23 March 2009. The respondent to the appeal, Mr Newby, filed a ‘Notice of Opposition to Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ on 27 April 2009.
The Police Force appeals the Arbitrator’s determination of Mr Newby’s ability to earn in suitable employment, self employed mowing lawns because there was no factual basis for the conclusion reached, his reasons were inadequate and the decision was speculative and unsubstantiated. In the appeal proceedings the Police Force seeks to admit and rely on new evidence purporting to establish the correct earnings of a ‘Jim’s Mowing’ franchisee.
BACKGROUND
Mr Newby left school after completing year 10 and completed a 4½-year apprenticeship at Tubemakers. He joined the Police Force commencing at the New South Wales Police Academy in Goulburn on 8 May 1988 and graduated on 29 July 1988.
After serving as a police officer at various ranks and locations he was medically discharged from the Police Force on 7 February 2008. Mr Newby suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’) with major related depressive disorder as a result of the general nature and conditions of his employment including repeated exposure to numerous traumatic events.
Mr Newby made a claim for psychological injury with a deemed date of injury of May 2006. Voluntary payments of compensation were made until 23 July 2008, when, by notice given under section 54 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’), he was advised that further payments would discontinue six weeks from the date of the letter. The insurer for the Police Force alleged that he no longer suffered an incapacity for work and that he was able to earn equal to, or in excess of, the amount that he could earn in the Police Force or suitable employment.
By letter dated 22 August 2008, the Police Force gave notice under section…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read NSW Police Force v Newby and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] NSWWCCPD 75
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue that the tribunal had to address was whether the reasons provided by the arbitrator were sufficient to justify the conclusion that the officer had the ability to earn in suitable employment. The tribunal examined whether the reasons given by the arbitrator were clear, adequate, and provided a sound basis for the decision on the officer's ability to earn. This examination was crucial as it affected the officer's entitlement to workers' compensation benefits.
The tribunal found that the reasons provided by the arbitrator were not adequate. The reasons lacked clarity and did not provide a sound basis for the conclusion that the officer had the ability to earn in suitable employment. The tribunal held that the reasons did not adequately address the specific circumstances of the officer's condition and did not provide sufficient justification for the conclusion reached. Consequently, the tribunal revoked the decision of the arbitrator and remitted the matter to a new arbitrator for a fresh determination of the officer's ability to earn in suitable employment. This decision underscores the importance of providing clear and adequate reasons in workers' compensation matters to ensure the proper application of the law and the fair resolution of disputes.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of the Arbitrator dated 24 February 2009 is revoked. The matter is remitted to a new arbitrator for determination of the worker’s ability to earn in suitable employment in accordance with the reasons given in this decision.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.